Ah, but this is where that kinda of individualist moral perspective breaks apart precisely because the point of the example (which I've adapted from the Purim story incidentally [Book of Esther]) is to see whose 'rights' mean more to you: that of one individual or those of her and her people as a group.

By sacrificing one thing; and it wasn't an uncommon thing thing to do btw, then one saves the lives of hundreds if not thousands of others. Essentially what you are saying is that you value a woman's right to consent to sex over the lives of hundreds if not thousands of others

You probably didn't intend it to mean that way, but that is the necessary consequence of the assertion (plus my fondness for using extreme examples to bring out someones moral/ethical priorities). Incidentally the rape also has positive connotations for her as if she consents then she and her people survive if she does not then they do not.

Not necessarily: you are thinking in too Machiavellian terms (I wouldn't have thought you would have done so actually or I would have qualified it more ). The point of the example was not that the ruler *wanted* to kill her people, but that is was the custom, tradition and will of his people that he do so for rebelling against them (a-la Assyrian policy) so the ruler needs an excuse to break precedent and by bedding a woman of said people that he desires he symbolically rules them. The ruler is bound by group norms and forms, which he cannot fight without a reason for setting precedent as otherwise he will be killed and dethroned (few rulers will ever sacrifice their rule on a *principle*) leading to probable civil war and so on.

So instead of pillage, looting, rapine and murder: you have a woman who is receiving something for the sacrifice of her body.

I know I said I was out but it's my birthday so I'll indulge myself. I'll also answer friend Iris's post when I have time to reflect on it.

The woman in your scenario has been placed in a no-win situation. The only moral course for her is to consent to sex with the King. Otherwise she'll see her people, including her loved ones, beheaded and enslaved. Because she is consenting- in a sense, there is no physical rape. But she is being used as a means to an end. Unfortunately for her, her own people might not consider her a heroine but feel she has been tainted and ostracize her. People are funny that way.

If the ruler is bound by group norms and forms, the breaking of which will lead to his dethronement and murder, he could pretend to bed the woman- and live on, trying to achieve an alteration in those norms. He is the King, after all. What's to stop him from demanding enough privacy to pull off a deception? With the situation you describe that seems to me the only moral course of action he could take.

This is to say White males evolved to withhold costly commitment until finding a high-quality mate, while Negro males evolved to focus on having as much casual sex with whatever is nearby, with no almost biological expectations of commitment as even a possibility. Thus the media image bombardment affects the White male strategy more than the Negro strategy, because it skews perceptions of how much quality is out there. Negroes are going for quantity in any case.

If anyone has seen the movie Idiocracy, this is where things are headed. Intelligence is selected AGAINST.

For me personally, while I would love to have tons of women, so I initially supported the media's whole idea of everyone being sluts. But I later realized I don't want women who've had tons of men. The more men they've had the more a turn off it is and prefer none at all. So I later realized this is actually a bad thing.

I know most people will say, "You're beta, whiny, white knighty. You should prefer women who are sluts. And it should bring you joy to your life to compete against all the guys whose main brain devotion is to charisma and not any other kind of intelligence." But in the end, some things really matter to me even if no one else in the world agrees. And if it matters to me at lot, then it's important to my life at least.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iris Sophia

There are lots of black men who will spend the day playing basketball long after most white men would have gotten bored doing so and will have moved on to computer-based logic hobbies or, a generation or two, things like souping up their cars.

I grew up in a mostly white school and the whites were just as hypnotized by basketball as the mestizos and blacks and hated intellectual stuff. The entire schools I've had except for a few people were stupid, except the whites and asians could memorize really well usually, and that's the only difference.

There is some flux in Africa between this kind of strategy and a simple tribal hunter/gatherer strategy where women and children are dependent somewhat on males for food, but this isn't anywhere nearly as developed. Women in Africa can often support offspring by simple agriculture and forage. They need not support them in as extensive a manner as required for educating and intellectually acculturating Whites and Asians, just for a few years. Black males begin showing signs of sexual maturity by age 9 or so.

Just an evolutionary theory for the whole out of Africa. What if... Africans used to be smarter hundreds of thousands of years ago but from this whole strategy of breeding, it made them dumber?

Isn't that kind of what Jared Diamond says? That primitives are really smarter because they don't have such complex societies.

I just went through the synopsii of his books. His earlier ones just sort of said the common idea. His last book, The World Until Yesterday: What Can We Learn from Traditional Societies, didn't have a synopsis on Wikipedia and elsewhere it was kind of vague. But I can probably guess the main point from it, at least something I know to be true, is that the industrial revolution might have been a very bad thing for the world. Massive environmental damage, overpopulation, plus a lot of the issues white nationalists are upset about only exist because it might not be the best way to run a society. I know in London when it first started, it was a living hell so bad thievery was considered a respectable living.

I don't believe living tribally like north american indians is good, but maybe living so we don't eat up all the world's resources like locusts.

This may have gone off the subject of whether complex societies are good or bad, but I don't think that matters so much and too little complexity might be bad as it's too primitive.

as a man of my early 20s ive found the women of my age group are absolutely into this whole bi sexuality thing. its perverse. there are women that are younger than me and theyve slept with both men and women! these people are absolutely stupid, as anyone with an intelligence of a small fly can see what parts go where.

they claim, its not about sex, its about the relationship, bull****. perverts form attractions to animals and children, that is wrong and shameful (as it should be) but if someone has a relationship with a member of the same sex, its deemed normal :/ personally im not even going to comtemplate a relationship with a woman that sleeps with women as well as men, its utter filth.

To them, there isn't anything "sacred," about sex. It's more of a fun activity.